Or do all people matter? Their needs and aspirations, their full realization as human beings, their planet?

I was leaving for the national convention of the Socialist Party USA being held October 14-16 in Los Angeles. I had just read The Independent article about our failed health care system [“Drugs, Dollars, and Death,” 10/13/11, independent.com/drugsdollarsdeath], particularly the systemic, outrageous misconduct of the pharmaceutical industry.

Edwin Laing

I was angry because I knew this was just another nasty example of the common failure of our economic system — capitalism.

People are in the streets by the hundreds of thousands. In their very bones, they know systemic failure.

At the convention, I met young people, folks of all races and walks of life, older people like myself who know it too. Capitalism cannot be reformed. We know we need a movement to inform and formulate a democratic society that really does serve everyone, not just the rich and powerful.

But it was also to name our top federal candidates, a longstanding Socialist Party practice to acquaint people with socialist ideas.

A working people’s slate emerged: Stewart Alexander of California for President of the United States, Alex Mendoza of Texas for Vice President of the United States.

Any convention needs at least one parliamentary dust up! Ours was over Cindy Sheehan, a non-member who has come to an anti-capitalist viewpoint. Last minute, a member reported her willingness to serve as our vice-presidential candidate. (She was not at the convention.) Because members sign an agreement with our Statement of Principles (see our web site) and she had not, her candidacy was not placed on the ballot.

The Socialist Party USA is open, transparent, feminist, multi-tendency, and democratic, not a vanguard or democratic centralist organization.

At the top of this article I asked about what really matters. The top of our web site answers: “Our aim is the creation of a new social order, a society in which the commanding value is the infinite preciousness of every woman, man and child.”

Visit it for more convention information at socialistparty-usa.org. There you can also download for free my primer on democratic socialism, “You Don’t Have to be a Saint to be a Socialist.” You can also find a link to a free expanded audio version of the primer on radio4all.

Capitalism matters. I'd be curious as to what the Socialist USA party would have to say about the effects capitalism has had in our world over the last 40 years: it has reduced world hunger by 1/2, reduced infant mortality rates by 1/3, increased doctor's per capita by 50%, increased caloric intake in third world nation's by 30%, I could go on. The simple fact is that economic freedom has increased equality, reduced poverty, raised living standards, and increased average life expectancy.

KenV: "Lets not forget Hitler, Peron, Mussolini, The Ayotollahs, Qaddaffi, Hussein, Somoza, Amin ect when it comes to the right side of things. Seems like maybe Socialism might be the happy medium after all."

Fascism (nationa socialist party, Hitler/El Duce) hasn't really made a mark since the end of WWII whereas the bodycount & human rights violations from socialism continues to grow to this day.Fascism (national socialist party) killed 6,000,000 people. In Stalin era Russia it was figured that he waxed @ least 13,000,000 people, that's not even those lost during Lenin era Russia, Mao waxed millions as did Pol Pot & other socialist states did the same.Peron was actually a socialist as was Quackdaffy (w/ his Mao's Little Red Book inspired Little Green Book) & Hussein was a Baath party loyalist, the Baath party is the Arab socialist party.The Ayatollahs were/are a religion based group of murderers & while socialism states that "religion is the opiate of the masses" socialism is set up on the same ideals that Christ preached, therefore tries to pass itself off in the same fashion as a religion.Somoza was a dictator, but Ortega (who replaced him w/ Castro's help) was like Castro: WORSE.Socialism continues to pile the bodies up in places like Cuba & N. Korea.Amin, he was just batcrap nutty, no political stance other than self preservation.So the moral oof the story is nope, socialism doen't even come close to a happy medium, it still sucks patootie :) henry

Amassing wealth doesn't hurt other people unless it is done through fraud, theft or other deceitful tactics.

The author and most socialists seem to insinuate that amassing wealth is a bad thing for the poor when it is in fact the opposite. In fact, in order to amass a lot of wealth in a just and free society, one must provide a lot of goods and services to others. This comes at a cost to that individual because they must work harder. Working harder creates a bigger pie for everyone, instead of the socialist model which effectively shrinks the pie before it slices it up more evenly. This creates a lower standard of living and ends up hurting the poor in the long-run. Instead the goal should be to create a bigger pie, which will ultimately lead to a larger slice for those in need.

Government intervention into the market place causes all sorts of distortions that lead to monopolies, unemployment, debt, corruption and all of the problems we see today in our non-free market economy.

The free market is actually the most compassionate model because it creates the highest standard of living for the most amount of people, and even the most needy can be taken care of through voluntary measures.

"We oppose all efforts to declare English an official language, and call for an end to all language discrimination. We demand that all public and private institutions provide services and materials in the languages of their communities."

This is insanity. Don't we have enough of a language/cultural barrier. The Leftist adage about making ones voice heard is meaningless if people can't understand what you are saying because there is no common language. Do these people ever think about someone calling 9-1-1- screaming in Marathi (one of the 180 or so languages of India) trying to tell the operator their loved one is having a toxic reaction? (Just a hypothetical scenario)

"We call for the lowering of the voting age to 15"So with government-run schools we will have government-indoctrinated foot soldiers.

"We oppose age-based curfew laws."Curfew laws help ensure the safety of children. Why should a ten-year-old be running loose in the streets at 3 in the morning?

"We call for the banning of all involuntary sterilizations."What if the woman is a habitual crack or meth addict who keeps having kids with drug-related birth defects? What's your answer to that?...did you even think of that?

"We call for the right of retirement at age 55 a minimum annual retirement income of $25,000, tax free, and protected from inflation by cost of living increases."

People are living longer. Lowering the age of retirement doesn't make sense.

"We oppose any effort to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act by restricting the definition of who is considered a person with a disability, and we call for an amendment to the act that would permit "

Jared Molski, professional plaintiff. How do I know this? The owner of the Mandarin Touch Chinese restaurant prevailed over Molski. The owner, Phil Leo, showed me where the handicap-accessible bathroom was in the plaza a few feet away from the restaurant and why it was impossible to have expanded the existing one.

"We call on all schools to adopt policies and procedures to address and prevent student violence and to ban discrimination against GLBTQ people throughout the educational system."

What about *straight* kids who get beat up for not being big enough, not being good looking enough, or being nerdy, or "acting white"? (My best friend who's Mexican got hassled for not being "Mexican enough".)

"Bullying" is suddenly a big issue *only* because gay activists are bringing it to the forefront per *their* demographic. When I went to Catholic school, there was no bullying problems because teachers and parents could discipline kids. Now (and even back in the 70's when I transferred to public schools) kids can bully other kids because they know there are no consequences.

"We demand an end to police brutality and all forms of harassment against people of color and ethnic minorities."

White people get hassled too, but just like the bullying issue has been turned into a sexual orientation wedge issue, this party wants to make police harassment a racial thing.

"We call for reparations from the federal government for its role in the slave trade and the genocide of Native American nations, with the reparations programs administered by the oppressed communities themselves."

Isn't that what affirmative action was all about? Also, if they feel so guilty about the Native Americans, why don't these people (the ones who are not Black or Indian) leave the country? Oh, that's right, because either A: They consider this their home, or B: They like the high standard of living free markets have helped provide. (I'm not saying some government help isn't good)

"We call for an end to military draft registration,"I agree with them on this one. In a just war--such as World War 2, guys were getting turned away. Lots of them even lied about their age to get IN to the army. Our armed forces used to be voluntary.

"We strongly support affirmative action, civil rights, and anti-discrimination laws and programs to end institutional racism."

We already have these laws in place. The Socialist Party doesn't own this idea.

Most have been confused by this system. Capitalism is an economic system not a representative system of government. We're supposed to have Democracy rather than corporate person-hood resulting in capitalism as our form of government.

It could be argued that the number one welfare recipient was George W. Bush (and his 'conservatives') as he was the dream, a capitalist dream of corruption as a mega-corporate advocate for the top 1%.

Bush's very first accomplishment in office was a TRILLION dollar tax cut for that top 1%. There was of course unending welfare for corporations in the form of deregulation, no oversight and the resulting TRILLION dollar TARP bailout of Wall Street. Another TRILLION dollar give-a-way to the drug companies in the form of a program called Medicare Part D (drugs.) There is this 4 Trillion dollar unending industrial complex of borrow-and-spend no bid contracts for warfare, injury, death and destruction.

Bush didn't pay for any of it. Much of it Bush didn't even put on the books or 'pay for it'. I don't really think that is socialism but probably capitalism.

Socialism and Facism are most accurately plotted on a circular graph, right next to each other. The utopian and theoretical version of socialism has NEVER worked in anything larger than an extended family, and as anthropology demonstrates, these groups end up stratifying over (overwhelmingly) patriarchal lines with their own hierarchy. Funny how nature works...While everyone is Occupying Anything And Everything they forget to mention that our form of a Democratic Republic has provided more egalitarian opportunity than all cultures before. And wait, I'm channeling Lou Dobb's again now, "This country is so screwed up that every illegal alien from Mexico to Columbia wants to break their way in to the U.S., China too."

I don't know what any of these guys have to do with capitalism. In fact, Hitler was a socialist.

"Bush's very first accomplishment in office was a TRILLION dollar tax cut for that top 1%. There was of course unending welfare for corporations in the form of deregulation, no oversight and the resulting TRILLION dollar TARP bailout of Wall Street. Another TRILLION dollar give-a-way to the drug companies in the form of a program called Medicare Part D."- DonMcDermott

Do you mean the tax cuts that Obama extended? You also forgot to mention the $535 billion in corporate welfare that Obama gave to Solyndra. And, what about the $1.24 billion in corporate welfare that Obama gave to Sun Power? That was an excellent decision, considering they used that money to open a new plant in Mexico.

Anyway. Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried. I don't know how anyone can look at Greece and say, "Hey. That doesn't look half bad. I think we should should give a system like that a try." In fact, Germany and Canada have finally pulled their collective heads out of their behinds, and have turned their backs on socialism in favor of capitalism, and are already the better for it. As big of a joke socialism is, guys like Laing are still scary. Guys like Laing are scary because there are guys like DonMcDermott, Ken_Volok, spacey, and all of the other whackoes of "Occupy Whatever" who are sympathetic to this socialist BS, and would also like to play fast and loose with our system.

Here's a question: If the occupy whatever thing is NOT about socialism, then why are many of the occupy whatever folks wearing their Che Guevarra t-shirts or have Che's image as their fb avatar?Here's another question: Why can't certain people just stop blaming Bush?It really has gotten old, so old in fact that even Obama stopped using Bush as his crutch :) henry

For as long as we're feeling the effects of the disastrous reigns of both Reagan and G.W. Bush, the blame is squarely at their feet. Historical events especially legislative ones don't exist in a vacumn. Perhaps Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's tho John Huston stated that Reagan was a lunatic in the 50s and only got worse. What's Bush' excuse?

As long as you're admitting it's not exclusively the fault of lil' Bush you'd better include Carter and his comical malaise. Even from afar, at the time in Italy, we viewed him as an incompetent boob. Now he's merely anti Semitic...And since Clinton began the great "free" housing run I guess his name is in the mix as well.Amazing that Bush, who was an abject failure and destabilized the world, is not the only nitwit President over the past few decades.Obama has closer ties to Wall Street than any of them so this chain is not going to end soon.

Ken, you're forgetting another factor that led to the disastrous effects you mention: Jimmy Carter.Can't leave him out of the picture, he was just as heavy a contributor as anyone else.By the way, didn't Slick Willy Clinton get us into a war (or military action) w/ Serbia? That had to have an effect on the economy as well.As for Bush's excuse, old hat, what's Obama's excuse now? Oh yeah, it's Bush's fault.Nothing new here folks, like that Aerosmith song says: "Same old story, same old song & dance my friends" :) henry

What the Hell do past presidents have to do with these idiots wanting to chuck capitalism, and become a bunch of brain dead socialists? The lefty hatred of capitalism and love of socialism (which they obviously know nothing about, because they've never lived under it) has nothing to do with Reagan or Bush. And, now that there's a socialist president in The White House, they think that this might be their opportunity to destroy capitalism.

maybe a socialist president would bring balance to our corporatocracy, seen in effect on the supreme court, congress, and senate.... Or maybe they would obstruct as is the fashion nowadays, a thin veil of racism.

Spacey, socialism has nothing to do w/ race, in fact in my birth country of Cuba socialism was used to denigrate ceratins races.Blacks under Castro underwent lesser rights & that is fact, as did native Ciboney Indians.The only Blacks that were given any of the "socialist utipian dream" (which was more like a nightmare) were those on sports teams that represented the country in the world stage.Sexual orientation has nothing to do w/ race, but let's not even talk about what socialism in Cuba did/does to gays (maricones), lesbians (tortilleras) or transgenders (mal-echos) because it would simply be appalling. Does the term "concentration camp" make you wonder?The reason some of you White-breds have a penchant for socialism is because you never had to endure it therefore know nothing of it & it seems like greener grass.But look @ the US under the current admin, it is a rather socialist admin & the mess we're in is the everyday reality of socialist countries you aspire to live in.If that's what you want, GO FOR IT! Venzuela, Cuba or N. Korea await your arrival.Here we get to make a change every 4 years. In Cuba or any other socialist state, the president for life is the reality of politics. Just ask Castro or now Chavez.In Honduras the people saw through Zelaya's lies & sent his tuckus packing. Kudos to them for saying NYET! :) henry

Sad, how the words 'socialism' and 'communism' were taken up by Dictators and Fascists, and that they became representatives of the ideas.

At least, italiansurg had a closer idea, with his comment about socialism working at a family level. While I disagree that it can't/hasn't worked with larger groups (think communes), he's right about it having "NEVER" worked--as far as on a world level. Then again, see my first paragraph.

Also, capitalism--aside from the argument (mentioned above already) that it's an *economic system*, as opposed to a political one--isn't the problem. It's the idea of UNCHECKED-capitalism that becomes a problem. Unfortunately, the true power of the working class--the ability to manage their consumption, in where and how they spend money--is never viewed as a source of power. We're all too busy salivating over the next iThing (need to register/trademark that!).

Oh, and I've said it before--the economy was beginning a descent on Bush W's watch, due to the burst of the (original) internet-bubble, which wasn't his fault. Personally, however, I would still blame the "Wars" and taxcut b-s on him though. . . .

In this country, individuals have power, not classes. I don't want power as a class, I want power as an individual. Each of us has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to thrive as individuals. And, I don't plan on dragging everyone else up the ladder with me. Let them do it on their own. If you don't like being in whatever social and financial strata you happen to find yourself, get out; don't just try to elevate the class.

"Personally, however, I would still blame the "Wars" and taxcut b-s on him though. . . ."- - equus_posteriori

The wars are still going on, and Obama extended the tax cuts. C'mon. Let's hear it. Who can you also blame if you really think that's the problem? I know it would stick in your throat, but his last name starts with O...

You're semantically splitting hairs, waz, and I think have either misinterpreted my point, or are trying to bend my words to your own cause. The "class" is inclusive of (working) individuals--who receive some kind of payment for their toils. I used the term "working class", to be a blanket for those who work, receive compensation for it, and choose to spend that money--consumers. It's not about "elevating" anyone, it's about controlling how rich some of us get, by *not giving those people money*.

Also, Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts, with the belief that it would, as the Republican lies go, "create jobs" and "boost the economy". The cuts didn't work that way when they were enacted, and I think Obama extended them in an attempt to play ball with the opposition party, while parroting the party line as an acceptable reason (or justification). He's trying to end the cuts now--although, I cannot say if it's due to a personal reason, or pressure from the Dems.

As for the "wars" (which I quote, as this time I am the one splitting hairs--Congress has not declared "War" for either Iraq, nor Afghanistan), the troops from Iraq are supposed to be "home for the holidays", so that conflict is essentially finished. I'm not sure why Afghanistan has gone on so long, but I've got two speculations:

1) After taking office, President Obama was informed by (whatever now passess as) intelligence, that there is a very specific reason we are still involved--and it's a reason that is not to be shared with the gen pop.

2) It's not as easy to end a "war" as we might wish. In fact, I wonder what's going to happen to the unemployment numbers, when troops begin to return en masse. . . .

"It's not about "elevating" anyone, it's about controlling how rich some of us get, by *not giving those people money*."- equus_posteriori

I think that says it all. Why should anyone GIVE us money? And, what business is it of ours how rich someone gets, as long as it's legal. I know, I'm splitting hairs again.

"After taking office, President Obama was informed by (whatever now passess as) intelligence, that there is a very specific reason we are still involved--and it's a reason that is not to be shared with the gen pop."- equus_posteriori

It's funny that only Obama gets the benefit of the doubt on that one. More lefty double standards.

"It's funny that only Obama gets the benefit of the doubt on that one. More lefty double standards."

Not necessarily. . . .In fact, I might agree with you on the part about "benefit of the doubt" being applied to--might as well say it--George W Bush. I cannot recall any specific reason for going into Afghanistan, other than the "War on Terror", but perhaps there was a "real" reason <--"real" being an, um, 'reasonable', reason.

However, it's also possible that the reasons for staying in Afghanistan are actually different than the one(s) for going there in the first place. This falls more along the line of "giving a pass" to Obama, and less for Bush, but I wouldn't disregard any reasonable argument on that out of hand--I just don't think the data is available for us to comment on it in any true detail.

As for "I think that says it all. Why should anyone GIVE us money? And, what business is it of ours how rich someone gets, as long as it's legal. I know, I'm splitting hairs again."

You're correct, in that you are creating a semantics argument here. You focus on the word "give", as if I meant it other than *paying for stuff*, although I think you continue to make the same argument--the power is of the Consumers

You see, I agree with you in that "what business is it of ours how rich someone gets, as long as it's legal", except it's the "legal" part that can be at issue. If someone is able to abuse a system to become rich, and or control the legality of their situation--before or after becoming rich(er)--then there's a problem. Unfortunately, I think it's less an issue of "splitting hairs" and more a "grey area" thing. There's probably examples where one could see an "engineered opportunity" as strategy, or as "unfair advantage" (assuming that it's possible to have a "fair advantage"!).

Actually, YOU are the one making the assumption, that the "lefties" are making an assumption.

In my particular answer above, I was only allowing for the possibility that "something nefarious" *could* be done. You're also throwing out a 'red herring' distraction, which tends to be the forte of the "righties"!